The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1887-12-31

@ the signature of Norton, In which he al
r tempted to reflect upon the integrity c
/ Judge Blanchard In reference to one o
these cases. From this circumstance an
others that might be referred to, not I
mention fat job of printing for the coun
, ty worth $3.50, but for which the count
, paid 800, on Norton's assurance that TIT
price was reasonable one) given to tn
JoUrRal by Norton's colleagues, we are In
clned 10 believe the J0urndi itself Is In
side of ring" and therefore has "spe
cial sources of information and really
tells the truth when II says II was in full
possession Of the facts" In Milligans cast
before he was tried. But can there be
any doubt from whom the JournaL go
full possession of the facts" SO fal
rs the side Of the prosecution wa:
concerned, who was In position TO furnish
all the facts and was likely to make
them known to the J0UrHdl? There can
be but one answer, If the Journal tells the
truth II was either the witness who wen;
twice before the grand juries to get MILF
gan indicted, or it was some one in the
states attorneys Office. AS 1t Is not prob
able the astute states attorney would be
likely to disclose unbidden the secrets of
his office, no other man than Norton could
have been sin full possession of the facts, ~
and no one but the egregiously vain and
notoriety seeking Norton could have had
the motive for their disclosure.
But, basing its belief on full possession
of all the facts, the Journal says 1t "nerer
did Jeliege the people had criminal case
that could be made to stick against Mill
gan"-in other words, II never did believe
Milligan was guilty Of the crime. The
Journal seems to entertain special pride
In reference TO the course II has pursued
and the "b0ld front il has maintained all
the way through the fight" in fact It goes
so far as to claim that II "instigated" the
investigations that led to the various indict
ments found against the ex officials, among
which were thetwo Indictments charging
Milligan with perjury, Yet the Jomlal
necer did 6eltere he was guilty. VIII the
JournaL point to one word, one syllable
aye, one letter, in its columns, protesting
against the unspeakable outrage II all the
time knew was being perpetrated on that
young man!
The editor Of that paper knows all the
facts Of the case, but contents himself, he
says, with never publishing "more than the
fact that Milligan was indicted" for crime
involving the highest degree of moral
temptitude! He believed Milligan was
innocent, yet published to the world, with
out comment, the fact that he was accused
Of damnable crime!
Among all honorable men, to falsely &C.
cuse and bring to trial an Innocent man on
The charge of perjury Is justly regarded as
Infamous as is the crime Of perjury Itself.
The JOurnaL knew such charge had been
made by some one against Milligan knew
and at least winked at what was being
done, knew the facts and kept silent-er-
cept to spread abroad the false accusation.
II stands by Its own confession particeps
cytmtnts with the man who concocted the
vile scheme to defame an innocent man.
As to the states attorney We are disposed
to cover him with the mantle Of charity.
No one can truthfully say he Is not Jealous
in the discharge of what he conceives to
be his official duty, He is tireless worker,
pertinacious and lndeiatigable In the pur.
suit OF facts. For long time before the
trial he had at his command the services
of large and willing committee under the
leadership of Norton, one of them, Gum,
old in the practice and learned In the law.
Hence, 1t is to be supposed that the states
attorney was in as full possession of the
facts" as was the Journal, at the time he
affixed his official signature to the second
indictment, and when he put Milligan on
trial. But, while this is so, 1t will hardly
be claimed by his most ardent admirers
that his knowledge of the law and of what
is necessary to constitute criminal offense
is so acute or profound as that of Norton
and the JOurnal man; and so, relying on
their statements and Norton's testimony
before the grand jury, he may have hon
estly believed Milligan was guilty. This
is the only reasonable hypothesis upon
which the part he performed at the "farce"
can be explained for otherwise lie GER
tainly would have adopted the manly course
Of telling the jury, when his evidence was
all in, what the Journal says twas gener-
ally known that he had made no case
against the defendant and they should ac-
quit him.
The serious thing for honest men to
reflect upon, In view of the simple facts of
Milligan's case, is, who is safe from the
attacks of the malicious and designing in
stlgator of the persecution he was sub
jected to?
--------